AROUND NEW HAMPSHIRE
1. A Governor from Laconia?
t=NH+Business+Review+News+
by Michael Kitch, laconiadailysun.com, August 24, 2015
LACONIA — State Senator Andrew Hosmer (D-Lacona) yesterday confirmed that he has held conversations and given thought to running for governor should incumbent Maggie Hassan choose not to seek a third term and instead challenge Republican U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte.
"Everything starts with the governor," Hosmer said, "and nobody knows what her intentions are."
The Democratic National Committee, eager to regain control of the Senate, targeted Ayotte, last year, but finds itself without a candidate. Hassan, who polls suggest would be a competitive candidate, is mired in a stalemate over the 2016-2017 budget with the Republican-led Legislature, which has stayed her decision while the electoral calendar has continued to run.
Hosmer, who is serving his second term in the Senate where he sits on the Finance Committee, said that when he was originally approached his initial reaction was to dismiss the notion, but added that after several meetings, "I was inclined to consider it, but remained undecided at best. My first priority is the budget," he continued. "I'm happy to be in the conversation, but my focus is on the budget."
According to the Concord Monitor, Colin van Ostern of Concord, a veteran of Democratic campaigns and administrations who is currently serving his first term on the Executive Council, and Mark Connolly ofNew Castle, former director of the Bureau of Securities Regulation, have also been mentioned as possible gubernatorial candidates should Hassan run for the Senate.
Although no Republican has formally announced as a candidate of governor, Chris Sununu of Newfields, who is serving his second term on the Executive Council, said in the spring that he would transfer day-to-operations at the Waterville Valley Resort, where he is chief executive officer and general manager, to others in order to weigh a gubernatorial campaign.
2. The Process Going Forward for Northern Pass
by Rep. Suzanne Smith, August 25, 2015
The announcement from Eversource last week was good news for Grafton County. But...you may be wondering, "what happens in Merrimack, Belknap, Rockingham, or Coos?" or even "why can't they bury the whole thing?" There seems to be quite a bit of concern about the "winners." and the "losers." I really don't care if you consider yourself a winner or loser but I do think the Legislators
The two main permitting processes will continue to roll out as scheduled. The federal process, operated by the US Department of Energy (DOE), will hold public hearings and accept public comments on its Draft Environmental Impact Statement in the fall. The state process, operated by the Site Evaluation Committee (SEC) is about to begin with public meetings in early September. NP has not yet filed an application or a route with the SEC. If the public demands it, NP may be willing to file an amended plan. Details below.
State permitting process
The SEC requires a developer to hold an initial round of public info meetings in each county the proposed projects runs through. After these first info hearings, the developer must then wait at least 30 days before holding the second set of hearings and filing an application with the SEC.
You will be able to make a public statement (or leave a written one) at this hearing. This will also be a chance for the public to get the nuts and bolts of what they plan to do.
This pre-filing hearing is a new requirement, and these types of meetings have been held only twice in the past so there is not a hard and fast format yet. At the one in Durham last spring they took minutes, with opportunity to speak again after all had been heard. You should also be able to leave written comments at the meeting if you don't wish to speak. At present, NP is in the pre-filing stage, there is no official SEC docket open, so there is no online comment option available yet.
The full schedule for the SEC pre-filing hearings:
1. Merrimack County. Wednesday, September 2. Grappone Center, Concord.
2. Rockingham County. Thursday, September 3. Deerfield Fair Pavilion, Deerfield.
3. Grafton County. Tuesday, September 8. Loon Mountain, Lincoln.
3. Grafton County. Tuesday, September 8. Loon Mountain, Lincoln.
4. Coos County. Wednesday, September 9. Mountain View Grand, Whitefield.
5. Belknap County. Thursday, September 10. Lake Opechee Inn, Laconia.
For all meetings, NPT's Open House starts at 5:00 PM. The SEC Public Information Session starts at 6:00 PM in the same location.
Federal Draft Env Impact Statement process
The federal permitting process is continuing. Nothing about NP 3.0 affects it, really. The next step is for the public to weigh in on the Draft EIS that was issued in July. If you have not had a chance to see it and would like to you can view it online here:http://www.
Public hearings will be held in the following locations (additional details will be provided when available):
- October 6, 2015: Concord, NH
- October 7, 2015: Whitefield, NH
- October 8, 2015: Plymouth, NH
I am unsure of the format for these public meetings, but guess it will be similar to the previous ones -- anyone who wishes to speak will be given a limited amount of time to address the group, and DOE officials will be present. Comments that address specific findings will be most effective, as opposed to general comments opposing or praising the project.
If you prefer, you can email your comment to Brian Mills, project manager here: draftEIScomments@
I am planning to attend as many of the SEC hearings as practical. No matter what you think about Northern Pass I hope you'll attend the hearings to find out what's planned in your county.
3. Questions
Still too many questions surrounding latest Northern Pass proposal
by Kathy Sullivan, unionleader.com, August 25, 2015
4. Treatment Delayed is Treatment Denied
Treatment Delayed in N.H.
Editorial, vnews.com, August 25, 2015
By now, it’s hardly news that New Hampshire has a drug problem. The toll of heroin and prescription opioid addiction has been well documented: More than 320 lives were lost in the state last year to overdoses. But while that is the most serious drug issue the state confronts, it is far from the only one.
For example, the Legislature, in response to the heroin epidemic, passed legislation this year that expanded access to naloxone from emergency responders to drug users, their friends and families. Naloxone is something of a miracle drug that is relatively easy to administer and saves lives by reversing the deadly effects of breathing failure in people who have overdosed on heroin or prescription opioids. Recognizing the urgency of the situation, lawmakers provided that the legislation would go into effect on the day it was signed into law by Gov. Maggie Hassan, which was June 2.
Unfortunately that sense of urgency was apparently not communicated to the bureaucracy or pharmacies that would be key to getting the life-saving drug quickly into the hands of those who might need it. As the Concord Monitor reported last week, more than two months after the law went into effect, doctors, pharmacies and advocates say that the rollout has been slow and actually obtaining the drug has been challenging. “Like everything else in state government, it’s complicated,” non-explained Joe Harding, director of the state’s Bureau of Drug and Alcohol Services.
In any case, the bureau plans to buy between 7,000 and 9,000 doses for $450,000 and distribute them free to first responders, health care providers and addicts and their families. The bureau is also developing an educational brochure for distribution. While naloxone is no substitute for the addiction treatment, prevention and recovery infrastructure New Hampshire so sorely needs, it does represent a powerful tool for intervention, and speed in making it available is of the essence.
Those waiting anxiously for naloxone may count themselves fortunate in one respect: that they are not among those suffering from debilitating conditions or terminal illness who have been waiting since 2013 for the state to roll out its medical marijuana dispensary system. That actually getting the system up and running might take time could be inferred from the fact that the legislation that created it runs to 14 pages and the accompanying department rules to 56. Still, this is ridiculous.
One of four dispensaries that are to serve patients in New Hampshire is proposed to be located on Route 120 in Lebanon, and a public hearing last week perhaps provided further insight into what has taken so long.
Among those speaking was Mayor Georgia Tuttle, a dermatologist who serves on the board of the American Medical Association, who expressed concerns about the efficacy of medical marijuana. “How are we going to make sure that what we’re doing here . . . is scientifically sound and how are we going to monitor the diversion issue?” she asked. Since research on marijuana has been restricted due to its federal classification, Tuttle said, she is concerned that there is insufficient information to rely on in providing marijuana to patients.
We’d respectfully suggest that the medical profession’s culpability in creating the nationwide heroin epidemic through indiscriminate overprescription of opioid painkillers is a far bigger issue than allowing dying or debilitated patients access to marijuana to relieve their symptoms. But be that as it may, the Legislature’s decision to authorize medical marijuana has settled the issue insofar as public policy is concerned, and the envisioned regulatory regime is as rigorous as it is possible to imagine. Simple compassion demands that this system be gotten up and running without further delay.
5. Outside Money & the Senate Race
AND NATIONALLY
6. International Shivers
The Wild Ride Gets Wilder – Only Government Spending Can Fix This
by Dave Johnson, ourfuture.org, August 24, 2015
The world is out of balance. Everyone’s nervous. There is a glut of money floating around the world and no one offers a “safe place” to put it. The stock market is way up, way down, way up, way down – sometimes all on the same day. China’s currency is having dramatic swings while the U.S. has an enormous, humongous trade deficit.
Super-wealthy people are making and losing hundreds of millions (sometimes billions) in a day – none of it on making or doing actual things that matter. Inequality is soaring. (The top 25 hedge fund managers earn more than all kindergarten teachers in the U.S. combined.) And all around the world, there’s very little actual economic growth.
Meanwhile, most people barely (or don’t) have enough to get by.
This is inequality: a ton of money at the top, everyone else hunkered down just trying to get by (or not getting by), forced to spend very little. Companies are afraid to expand if no one is spending. The result is poor demand to guide the way to safe investment. But governments – the source of demand when people and companies are hunkered down – keep cutting back.
Why the imbalances? Too much money at the top, concentrated in too few hands. Paul Krugman’s New York Times column Monday, “A Moveable Glut,” preceded today’s 1,100-point stock-market drop at the opening bell:
For seven years and counting we’ve lived in a global economy that lurches from crisis to crisis: Every time one part of the world finally seems to get back on its feet, another part stumbles. [. . .] But these aren’t just a series of unrelated accidents. Instead, what we’re seeing is what happens when too much money is chasing too few investment opportunities.
Each imbalance is a measure of people with wealth and power using that wealth and power to rig the system to keep things flowing their way. Our trade deficit measures factories closed and jobs shipped out so a few can pocket the wage differential. The more than $2 trillion parked in tax havens by U.S.-based multinational corporations – representing up to more than $700 billion in taxes owed but not paid – measures schools not opened, roads not built, teachers not hired, scientific research not done; in other words, the resources not being used to provide a solid underpinning for our economy. Currency swings measure “hot money” chasing around the world for a return.
Do the wealthy few say, “Hey, what I am doing is throwing the whole system out of whack, killing the chance of future prosperity?” Hell no, they don’t; this is all working just great for the few people who are ending up with all that money. And those are the people putting up the money to propagandize the public, saying government shouldn’t be interfering with what’s going on.
Government Spending Creates Demand
Speaking of government, the biggest imbalance in the world right now is the degree to which governments have cut back on badly needed spending. Government is supposed to be the engine of growth. Government is the segment of the economy that invests in the basics – such as infrastructure, education and research – that provide the fertile ground from which prosperity springs.
But around the world, especially in Europe, tax-starved governments, forced into austerity budgets that are slowing their economies, are cutting back, cutting back, cutting back. Always, the prescription for slowing economies resulting from austerity is … more austerity, because “government gets in the way of doing business.”
Spending on infrastructure, social welfare, education, regulation of markets, regulation of corporate behavior are all cut back. All of these cuts slow the ability of people to participate in the economy. All of these cuts kill off the very things that bring about future economic growth.
Right after President Obama took office with a Democratic House and Senate to back him up, the U.S. tried the opposite of austerity cutbacks and enacted the “stimulus.” This chart from two years ago shows what happened:
The economy was losing more than 800,000 jobs a month. That was reversed. The meager amount of actual investment in the stimulus, (a big chunk just halted the firing of teachers, police and other public workers, and one-third was spent on tax cuts people didn’t even know they got), brought about the foundation for the at least low-to-slow growth we’ve had since. That bit of government spending on infrastructure, education and research laid down a real foundation for at least some future economic growth.
But then came the surrender to the “sequester” and other austerity. Investment in U.S. infrastructure since the Reagan tax cuts is just awful. The American Society of Civil Engineers’ most recent “Infrastructure Report Card” estimates we need to spend $3.6 trillion by 2020 just to get to normal standards. And after maintenance on our basic infrastructure – bringing it all up to 21st-century standards – we need to invest in a nationwide high-speed rail network, a nationwide “smart grid” power system, and more. These require major investment, and the amount is a measure of how far we have let ourselves fall behind.
Government investments bolster growth. The important part is the spending. The country needs real work done on real things we need in a big way. Imagine the hiring and wage boosts if we spent the needed $3.6 trillion in the next few years, plus investment in new things like high-speed rail. If we issued $3.6 trillion in new government bonds to soak up some of that glut of “hot money,” we would put a stop to the “bubble economy” of financialization chasing after fast returns from investment in nothing real.
In market terms, this glut of money looking for a safe haven is proof the U.S. needs to borrow more (taking advantage of the high demand for U.S. bonds and the high prices investors are willing to pay) and use the money to invest in our economy (thereby providing the means to pay off the bonds).
There is little to no growth in the world economy right now; no country is serving as an engine that can provide the needed thrust for growth, and the money glut has no good place for investment. In this environment, clearly our government should be spending money – not debating how much we cut. It works. Look at that chart again. It works. What we need is real stuff getting done now, hiring real people in real jobs and laying the foundation for a real economy that really works.
7. Of, By, and For the Powerful
Do the Rich Rule the United States?
by Chuck Colllins, truth-out.org, August 21, 2015
Is America's political system controlled by a small financial elite? One former president thinks so.
Almost 40 years after he was elected, former President Jimmy Carter commented recently that our political system is now "an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery." He may be right.
For the last three decades, wealth has concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Just how few? As of 2013, the wealthiest 3 percent of households in the United States held more than half of all private wealth.
All that concentrated wealth translates into concentrated political muscle - including the power to influence elections.
As of this summer, over half of all donations to Republican super PACs came fromjust 130 wealthy families and their businesses. Democratic candidates had a wider base of small contributors, but also plenty of big-money donors of their own.
We're now living through the billionaire primary. Six months before a single vote is cast in New Hampshire, the field of candidates is being selected and winnowed by billionaire donors.
Indeed, it seems like a presidential hopeful must have at least one billionaire backer - and ideally several - to be considered a credible candidate. Roofing billionaire Diane Hendricks gave $5 million to the Scott Walker campaign. Houston billionaire Toby Neugebauer gave a $10 million boost to Ted Cruz. Oracle CEO and billionaire Larry Ellison gave $3 million to Marco Rubio.
This political patronage system effectively disenfranchises ordinary voters.
Since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision opened the floodgates for unlimited political sending, the pace of contributions has only escalated. Super PACs have already raised $258 million for this election cycle - more than 16 times the total from this point in the 2012 race.
Unfortunately, this is just the tip of iceberg.
The wealthy are major contributors to a vast array of other lobbying groups masquerading as tax-exempt social welfare organizations. The Koch brothers alone have vowed to give and raise nearly $1 billion for these kinds of groups and related work by think tanks and universities during this electoral cycle.
These organizations don't have to disclose the identity of their donors, even as they increasingly influence our elections.
The Federal Election Commission has effectively thrown up its hands in attempting to regulate this secret money. As a result, untold additional millions will flow through these tax-exempt corporations, providing the super-wealthy with another avenue to influence the outcome of state and federal elections.
This isn't just a new Gilded Age. As Campaign Finance Institute president Michael Malbin says, this may even be a new "Platinum Age."
What can we do?
Encouraging movements are forming in response to the corruption of our electoral system. So far, 70 former members of Congress have come together to form the bipartisan ReFormers Caucus to press for campaign finance reform. And a new group, 99Rise, has launched a campaign to expose and eliminate secret money from our campaign finance system.
Carter laments that the present system of campaign finance "violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system."
A century ago, Louis Brandeis expressed similar fears for our fragile experiment in self-governance. "We must make our choice," the future Supreme Court justice said. "We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
We must make our choice: democracy or rule by the rich?
8. Where a Lot of That Money is Going
One bubble not popping: political ad spending
by Robert Schroeder, marketwatch.com, August 21, 2015
Digital spending seen breaking $1 billion barrier; D.C. firms gear up
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Political candidates and (mostly importantly) your backers, get out your wallets: Spending on political advertising is forecast to hit a record high next year, as television airwaves and digital media fill up with the sights and sounds of Campaign 2016.
New research from Borrell Associates published this week foresees political ad spending hitting $11.4 billion in 2016, a 20% increase from 2012, the last presidential election year. The bulk of that spending will go to television, the report predicts, but 2016 will be the first year in which spending on digital media breaks the $1 billion level.
Adding in 2015 spending, the Borrell reports predicts total ad spending in this election cycle will be $16.5 billion, with about half of that spent on the national elections and half on local contests.
The increased spending is a continuation of a trend that has its roots in the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, says Kip Cassino, the report’s principal author. That decision allowed unlimited spending on elections by corporations and unions.
amount of money let loose by the Citizens United decision has certainly been the overwhelming effect that is driving the money in these elections,” says Cassino.
Cassino says that advertising rates keep rising, so more spending doesn’t necessarily mean a greater number of ads cascading in front of Americans’ eyes between now and November 2016. Still, he tells MarketWatch, we should expect a “deluge” of ads as presidential, congressional and local candidates set their sights on Election Day.
As the 2016 races approach, meanwhile, companies that work in political advertising are anticipating the need to add staff.
Jim Walsh, CEO of DSPolitical, a voter-targeted digital ad network for Democratic campaigns and progressive causes, says he expects digital advertising to “explode.” Walsh’s firm has worked for Senate Democrats including Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. This season, he says, he expects to work with “pretty much any campaign you can imagine.”
Brian Donahue, CEO of Craft Media/Digital, an agency that works for Republican candidates and corporate and nonprofit clients, also expects digital to take off. “There’s so many advertising opportunities that have become available to advertisers and agencies like ours that were not available even two years ago,” says Donahue. Donahue’s firm is involved in both digital and television advertising and expects to work with super PACs this cycle. Craft has worked with the National Republican Congressional Committee and lawmakers including Rep. Martha McSally of Arizona.
Walsh says his company started in 2010 with two employees and has grown to 30. The company is expanding its downtown Washington office to accommodate 72 staff members. He says he’s “absolutely” planning to hire ahead of 2016.
Donahue says his firm recently hired two new account executives and is seeking candidates for digital advertising positions. Craft has 23 employees.
While online ads may be a hot way to target voters, TV viewers have already seen a blizzard of political advertisements. Take, for example, ads promoting Republican White House hopefuls as the numerous contenders vie for the GOP nomination.
Between Jan. 1 and Aug. 4, more than 7,800 television spots focusing on the Republican battle have aired, according to Kantar Media’s Campaign Media Analysis Group. That’s up from 1,023 during the same period in 2011.
Elizabeth Wilner, senior vice president for political advertising at Kantar Media, says the need to build name identification and to qualify for the debates is what’s behind the huge jump in TV spots. Both candidates and the groups that support them — for example, New Day for America, a group backing Ohio Gov. John Kasich — are trying to get names out there, she says. “It’s a pretty crowded Republican field,” observes Wilner.
Overall political TV ad spending could reach $4.4 billion this cycle, Kantar has estimated.
Wilner also cites the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision as a major factor behind ad spending this year.
“This year, we’re seeing, instead of having the candidates be out there doing most of the advertising, we’re seeing candidate-specific outside groups” doing most ads on candidates’ behalf, Wilner says. “We didn’t see that in 2012.”
Citing the example of 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, Wilner says that year, there were groups backing him with ads. But they were still “hanging back a bit, and trying to let the Romney campaign take the lead.”
Now, Wilner says there is a “more sophisticated application [by outside groups] of what the laws permit.”
Cassino’s firm predicts total ad spending of about $12.6 billion in 2020, the next presidential election year. He estimates that, by then, spending on digital ads will have jumped to within 30% of broadcast TV levels as television audiences erode further and voters spend even more time online.
9. Fiorina: No Friend to Women's Concerns
Carly Fiorina Is a Trojan Horse in the GOP's War on Women
by Andrea Flynn, newrepublic.com, August 18, 2015
The New York Times recently described Carly Fiorina, the only woman among 17 Republican candidates for president, as the GOP's "weapon against the 'war on women' charge." The Times is right: She’s a Trojan horse. Fiorina, who has surged in the polls since herwell-received debate performance, presents herself as a candidate Republican women can get behind—especially as Donald Trump increasingly alienates them. But if she made it to the White House, she would enact a conservative agenda that is bad for women and bad for families.
Fiorina, a former Hewlett-Packard CEO, is a dream come true to the GOP. In her, the party has found an antidote to Hillary Clinton: a conservative woman who scoffs at the very idea of “women’s issues,” and who believesthe war on women is nothing more than a false political narrative cooked up by Democrats. She took on Trump in the wake of his sexist attacks on Fox News' Megyn Kelly, a move that served her and her party well: It deflected attention from the candidates’ anti-abortion debate remarks(such as Governor Scott Walker’s refusal to say whether he supports an abortion-ban exception for mothers whose lives are at risk), and did damage to the unwelcome candidate dominating the GOP field.
It’s not surprising that conservatives are embracing Fiorina. In 2012, the GOP lost the unmarried women’s vote by 36 points; in the party’s election post-mortem, strategists recommended that candidates use female spokespeople to better communicate the GOP’s policies. They also advised making a better effort to listen to female voters, to push back against the Democratic “rhetoric against the 'so-called War on Women,'" and to use Women’s History Month to “remind voters of the Republican’s Party historical role in advancing the women’s rights movement.” But as we saw from the recent conservative excoriation of Planned Parenthood—led in part by GOP Senator Joni Ernst and Congresswoman Diane Black—the messengers look (a bit) different but the message is still the same.
Fiorina may be able to unite conservative women by hewing to the party line on social and economic issues, but she’s unlikely to make inroads with low-income women, women of color, young women, and immigrant women. She is in favor of shutting down the government in order to defund Planned Parenthood. She is opposed to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and to the law’s provision that guarantees no-cost coverage of contraception. She opposes raising the minimum wage, mandating paid family leave, and enacting legislation that would close the gender pay gap. Democratic politicians didn’t fabricate these issues to advance their own case. Voters know these issues are the bedrock of their health and economic wellbeing, and the GOP is hoping to convince them otherwise.
But that’s unlikely. One in five women in this country have visited a Planned Parenthood and 99 percent use birth control at some point in their lives. The ACA has extended care to millions of women who once were routinely charged more than men for coverage, had to pay out-of-pocket for preventive services like pap smears and breast exams, and who often couldn’t afford maternity coverage during pregnancy. Polling conducted in New York and Pennsylvania showed that 80 percent of voters believe a woman’s ability to control the timing and size of her family “is an important part of equality for women,” and more than 70 percent believed abortion access is linked to women’s financial stability.
Women know that the current economic system is not working for them or their families, and they want policies to change it. Two-thirds of minimum-wage workers are women: A wage hike would mean a raise 37 percent of black working women, 43 percent of Hispanic working women, and nearly half of working single moms of color. Only 13 percent of U.S. workers have employer-based paid family leave, and today women still make 78 cents on the dollar compared to their white male counterparts (black and Hispanic women make 64 and 56 cents, respectively). Seventy-three p
Fiorina is helping the Republican Party in its efforts to turn Trump’s misogyny against him, to simultaneously usher him out of the race and curry favor with the crucial women’s vote. She hopes to convince women that the party is not actually out of touch with them. But make no mistake: If Fiorina gets through the gates, she will attempt to rout women's rights in America.
FINALLY twofer
No comments:
Post a Comment